text:
Imagine the following hypothetical: The World Health Organization ("WHO") is deeply involved in a high level cover up of the human impact and dangers of ionizing radiation, intentionally hiding the facts from the public, a chilling storyline!
After all, the world community depends upon WHO as an independent org t0 forewarn the general public of health dangers and to help in times of crises, not hide pivotal health facts from public eye.
As it happens, that nightmarish hypothetical comes to life in an interview with Alison Katz, who claims: "We are absolutely convinced that if the consequences of nuclear radiation were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, if the public knew, it would probably be excluded immediately as an energy option."
Alison Katz heads a NGO known as Independent WHO, and she spends a lot of time arranging sandwich boards with messages like: "Complicity in Scientific Crime" or "Crime of Chernobyl – WHO Accomplice" in front of WHO headquarters/Geneva. For 10 years now on a daily vigil from 8:00-to-6:00 she and/or other protestors expose alleged misbehavior committed by WHO, right outside of the headquarters building. Imagine this: Ten years on the same street corner every working day. It's commitment and determination sans pareil.
"The aim of the silent vigil is to remind the World Health Organisation of its duties. It was Hippocrates who formulated the ethical rules for health practitioners. The World Health Organisation ignores these rules, when it comes to protecting the health of the victims of the consequences of the nuclear industry".
Which brings forth: Ten years of hard work combating a difficult and challenging issue warrants public adulation beyond carrying posters back and forth, come rain or shine, trudging away in the heat of the sun or the freezing cold and snow in front of WHO Hdqs. Hopefully, this article serves that purpose for Alison Katz.
The mission of Independent WHO is to expose WHO's failings whilst calling for WHO independence away from influence by the worldwide nuclear syndicate: According to WHO Independence's Web Site: "The World Health Organization (WHO) is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination."
Ms Katz worked inside the WHO for 18 years. She insists that WHO, in cahoots with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), dangerously misrepresents the inherent dangers of ionizing radiation, an insinuation that smacks in the face with egregiousness galore.
Ms Katz's April 2017 interview, which this article is based upon, can be heard in its entirety. The excellent interview of Alison Katz was handled by LIbbe HaLevy, producer and host of Nuclear Hotseat at: www.NuclearHotseat.com.
This article condenses and summarizes her one-hour interview. As such, according to Ms Katz: "The health consequences of nuclear activity, whether they are civil or military, are not known to the public… There has been a very high level cover up… including the WHO."
For over 50 years WHO provided "a clean bill of health for nuclear power." However, according to Ms Katz, that clean bill of health is not based upon independent science. It's based upon "pseudo science" manipulated and largely controlled by the nuclear lobby and International Atomic Energy Agency, the Queen Bee of the pro-nuke Hive.
Furthermore, within the "United Nations family hierarchy," WHO is entirely subservient to IAEA. In turn, IAEA reports to the Security Council of the UN or the very top echelon of the power hierarchy of the world, including France, China, UK, U.S., and the Russian Federation. Far and away, these are the world's biggest nuke heads.
Connecting the dots leaves one breathless within a telling trail of pro-nuke advocacy of the highest order… hm-m-m, thus raising the question: How is it humanly possible for WHO to objectively, impartially, squarely and soberly analyze and recommend ionizing radiation issues on behalf of the general public?
Is it at all possible, even a little bit?
As it goes, the IAEA has two mandates, which sound innocent enough: (1) to prevent proliferation of nuclear power and (2) promotion of the use of the atom on a peaceful basis, ah-ah-ah… oh well, never mind. In reality, IAEA is a commercial lobbying org promoting use of the atom, yet at the same time, it dictates WHO procedures, standards, and published articles on the matter of nuclear radiation, prompting a very pregnant question: Is this a conflict of interest for WHO? Answer: Yes, it is! WHO is a creature of the dictates of IAEA, which is the world's largest promoter of the atom. Whereas, WHO is supposed to "independently serve the public interest," not kowtow to a nuclear advocacy powerhouse that reports to nuclear powerhouse countries that have a deepening love affair with nuclear power, warts and all.
For example, sixty (60) reactors are currently under construction in fifteen countries. In all, one hundred sixty (160) power reactors are in the planning stage and three hundred (300) more have been proposed. That's a love affaire.
Meanwhile, as for WHO's mandate: It serves as the leading authority of standards for public health, coordinating research, advising member states, and formulating ionizing radioactivity health policies. However, IAEA has been usurping WHO's mandate for the past 50 years. In fact, a 1959 Agreement (WHA 12-40) between the two says WHO needs prior approval of IAEA before taking any action or publishing material dealing with nuclear, period!
As a result of this 50-year conflict of interest, which is deeply embedded by now, Ms Katz claims WHO must, absolutely must, become independent, thus breaking the stranglehold of numero uno promoter of nuclear power over WHO, which is mandated to serve the public, not IAEA.
Not only is there a serious conflict of interest, Katz claims WHO fails, time and again, to meet its mandate to the public, as for example:
1) WHO remained absent from Chernobyl for five years even though the WHO mandate requires it to be present the "day after a catastrophe" to evaluate and provide assistance. But, WHO was MIA for 5 years.
2) WHO does not issue independent reports on radiation issues. All nuclear-related reports are written by IAEA but published "in the name of the WHO."
3) Following Chernobyl, there were two international conferences held to analyze the implications of the catastrophe; one held in Geneva in 1995 and the second in Kiev in 2001. The "Proceedings of the Conferences" were never published by WHO; thus, never made public even though WHO claims the proceedings are publicly available. Confusing? Yes! To this day, the relevant question remains: What did "the analyses" show?
As a result of WHO's egregious conflicts, the world community has no independent arms-length source on nuclear radiation. That is a situation fraught with conflict and extremely difficult to accept, sans grimacing with a lot of teeth grinding.
Once again, with emphasis: There is no independent international authority reporting to the public on nuclear radiation…. none whatsoever. All information about nuclear radiation ultimately comes from the primary users/promoters of nuclear power even though they have a very big heavy axe to grind.
Of course, there are independent scientists, but they face enormous obstacles in coming forward with the truth, thereby risking monetary grants and risking personal positions, as well as family livelihood.
Not only that, but over the years all departments within WHO that dealt with nuclear radiation have been highly compromised. Even worse, according to Ms Katz, no senior radiation scientists work for WHO, none… nada.
What constitutes the "nuclear establishment" is a fair question; it consists of the major governments of the world like France and the U.S but led by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the top dog, establishing standards for the world. Strangely enough, there are no health experts at ICRP, prompting a logical question: Why not?
There is more to be concerned about, e.g., another shocking fact regarding ICRP, as if there are not already enough shockers with the thread that runs throughout nuclear power's closely-knit network: Even though "ionizing radiation is mutagenic and always causes mutations, causing damage at the cellular level, there are no molecular biologists working in the ICRP" (Katz). Thus, the world's largest institution for determination of radiation standards for the public has no molecular biologists on staff. That fact is beyond belief, an eye-opener beyond all other eye-openers.
It's almost as if the regulators don't give a damn about the effects of radiation on the general public. Do they?
Just after Fukushima in 2011, Ms Katz met with the Director General and five of the highest-ranking officials of WHO. The mayor of Geneva also attended the meeting; curiously, the City of Geneva, where WHO is headquartered, has an anti-nuclear provision in its city code.
The outcome of that meeting clearly demonstrated to Katz, and to the mayor of Geneva, that WHO abdicated its responsibilities for Fukushima.
However, a small victory ensued during the meetings as some solace was found when the Director General did admit, "there is no safe threshold of radiation." And, she admitted to differences between internal and external radiation, which was a change of heart.
Remarkably, the Director General also confessed a shocking level of incredulity that only 50 people died from Chernobyl, widely claimed by the Director General's own organization, WHO. That is the final number (50) of deaths that WHO attributes to Chernobyl. Howbeit, it's a fabricated number w/o any meaning whatsoever and not supported by observational data.
Consequences of Chernobyl
WHO held a Chernobyl Forum in 2004 designed to "end the debate about the impact of Chernobyl radiation" whilst WHO maintains that 50 people died.
Here's the final conclusion of that Chernobyl Forum '04: The mental health of those who live in the area is the most serious aftereffect, leading to strong negative attitudes and exaggerated sense of dangers to health and of exposure to radiation. Mental health was thus identified as the biggest negative aftereffect.
Because that conclusion is so brazenly bizarre, the Chernobyl Forum '04 must've been part of an alternative universe, way out there beyond the wild blue yonder, maybe the Twilight Zone or maybe like entering a scene in Jan Švankmajer's Alice, a dark fantasy film loose adaptation of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland.
Here's reality: Chernobyl Liquidators fought the Chernobyl disaster. Eight hundred thousand (800,000) Liquidators from the former USSR, largely recruits from the army, with average age of 33, fought the Chernobyl disaster.
According to an interview (2016) with a Liquidator, "We were tasked with the deactivation of the third and fourth reactors, but we also helped build the containment sarcophagus. We worked in three shifts, but only for five to seven minutes at a time because of the danger. After finishing, we'd throw our clothes in the garbage" (Source: Return to Chernobyl With Ukraine's Liquidators, Aljazeera, April 25, 2016).
"Estimates of the number of liquidators who died or became ill as a result of their work vary substantially, but the men of the 633rd say that out of the 259 from their group, 71 have died. Melnik says that 68 have been designated as invalids by a state committee, which investigates their health and determines whether or not their diseases are attributable to Chernobyl… Dr Dimitry Bazyka, the current director-general of the National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine in Kiev, says that approximately 20,000 liquidators die each year," Ibid.
As for total deaths, the Chief Medical Officer of the Russian Federation reported that 10% of its Chernobyl Liquidators were dead by 2001. The disaster occurred in 1986 with 80,000 dead within 16 years. Authorities out of Ukraine and Belarus confirmed Russian death numbers. Yet, WHO claims 50 died.
Eighty-thousand (80,000) Liquidators, as of 16 years ago, dead from Chernobyl, and that body count, according to Ms Katz, leaves out the people most contaminated by Chernobyl, meaning evacuees and also 57% of the fallout for Chernobyl came down outside of the USSR, Belarus, and Ukraine, and in 13 European countries 50% of the countryside was dangerously contaminated.
As for studies of the radiation impact of Chernobyl: "Thousands of independent studies in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation and in many other countries, that were contaminated to varying degrees by radionuclides, have established that there has been significant increase in all types of cancer, in diseases of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, urogenital, endocrine immune, lymph node nervous systems, prenatal, perinatal, infant child mortality, spontaneous abortions, deformities and genetic anomalies…." (Katz)
Hence, WHO's handling and analysis and work on Chernobyl leaves the curious-minded speechless, open-mouthed, agape, and confounded.
WHO's Flawed Fukushima Report
WHO issued two reports on Fukushima:
1) Evaluation of exposure
2) Likely health effects
Alex Rosen of Int'l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War critiqued the two WHO Fukushima reports, found to be extremely problematic, and once again, similar to Chernobyl, shoddy work that sweeps way too much dirt under the carpet.
Here's the problem: WHO's estimates of Fukushima radioactive exposure are at least 50% less than any other estimates, including estimates provided by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator) itself. But, WHO is supposed to be the guardian of public health concerns, not TEPCO.
Also, two critical population studies are ignored in the WHO reports, i.e., all of the residents within the 20 km exclusion zone are eliminated, even though their radiation exposure would be very high, actually highest. The second group ignored is workers on site… ahem!
Additionally, WHO cavalierly approved the Japanese government's drastic change in annual maximum radiation exposure allowed for the general population up to 20 mSv per year.
Effects of Radiation
The genetic effects of radiation likely exceed anything understood by the general public, as WHO and other health orgs do not properly educate the public about radiation's risks: "The genetic effects, far from diminishing with time, increase" (Katz), which is extra bad.
Years of research around Chernobyl show that the genetic impact of radiation to the human body becomes much, much worse as time passes. Thus, "radiation is both a continuing and a worsening catastrophe as time passes" (Katz). Radiation's impact gets worse over time; it does not heal, does not dissipate, does not go away; it grows progressively worse, like the film sequels to Godzilla, which was conceived as a metaphor for nuclear weapons in the early 1950s.
Indisputably, all organ systems of the human body are affected by radioactive contamination. Cancer is not the only nasty result of radiation exposure. Radioactive contamination affects the entire human immune system from head to toe, thus impacting every organ system in the body, e.g. musculoskeletal, etc. This damage to organs is in addition to the various cancer risks.
After all, consider this, 30 years after the fact, horribly deformed Chernobyl Children are found in over 300 asylums in the Belarus backwoods deep in the countryside.
Equally as bad but maybe more odious, as of today, Chernobyl radiation, since 1986, is already affecting 2nd generation kids.
According to a USA Today article, Chernobyl's Legacy: Kids With Bodies Ravaged by Disaster, April 17, 2016: "There are 2,397,863 people registered with Ukraine's health ministry to receive ongoing Chernobyl-related health care. Of these, 453,391 are children — none born at the time of the accident. Their parents were children in 1986. These children have a range of illnesses: respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, eye diseases, blood diseases, cancer, congenital malformations, genetic abnormalities, trauma."
It's taken 30 years for the world, via an article in USA Today, to begin to understand how devastating, over decades, not over a few years, radiation exposure is to the human body. It is a silent killer that cumulates in the body over time and passes from generation to generation to generation, endless destruction that cannot be stopped.
Where is WHO is kinda like Where is Waldo, but sadly the effects of ionizing radiation are not part of a game. It is deadly serious, forevermore. In the meanwhile, Fukushima irradiates and irradiates, limitlessly and so far, unstoppable. Where does its radiation go?


text: Eleventh version of the X Window System. The X Window System is a network transparent window system which runs on a wide range of computing and graphics machines. X11 has primitives which are useful for the creation of graphical desktops (e.g., Windows, Colors, Displays, Screens). You can almost think of X11 as a 2D graphics library but in practice it does far more than that. X11 is also responsible for delivering a unified stream of events describing the user's interaction with input devices like the keyboard, mouse, touch pads, etc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Library of Medicine (NLM) |
Funding Opportunity Title |
NLM Administrative Supplements for Informationist Services in NIH-funded Research Projects (Admin Supp) |
Activity Code |
Administrative Supplement Additional funds may be awarded as supplements to parent awards using the following Activity Code(s): P01 Research Program Projects (NIA) |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
Companion Funding Opportunity |
None |
Only one application per parent award is allowed as defined in Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility. |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.879;93.393;93.867;93,866;93.273;93.286;93.173;93.121 |
Funding Opportunity Purpose |
The National Library of Medicine, in conjunction with NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) named above, announces an Administrative Supplement opportunity available to eligible NIH awardees with active R01 grants and, in some cases, with active P01, P30, P50 and U01 grants (see details below). These administrative supplements provide funds to supported research and center grants in order to enhance the storage, organization, management and use of electronic research data through the involvement of informationists, also known as in-context information specialists. The purposes of this administrative supplement program are (1) to enhance collaborative, multi-disciplinary basic and clinical research by integrating an information specialist into the research team in order to improve the capture, storage, organization, management, integration, presentation and dissemination of biomedical research data and (2) to assess and document the value and impact of the informationist's participation. |
Posted Date |
April 11, 2012 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
May 5, 2012 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
Not Applicable |
Application Due Date(s) |
June 5, 2012, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
Not Applicable |
Advisory Council Review |
Not Applicable |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
September, 2012 |
Expiration Date |
June 6, 2012 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Application Guide (SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide or PHS398 Application Guide, as appropriate) except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The National Library of Medicine, in conjunction with NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) named above, announces an Administrative Supplement opportunity available to eligible NIH awardees with active R01 grants and, in some cases, with active P01, P30, P50 and U01 grants (see details below).
These administrative supplements provide funds to supported research and center grants in order to enhance the storage, organization, management and use of electronic research data through the involvement of informationists, also known as in-context information specialists.
The purposes of this administrative supplement program are (1) to enhance collaborative, multi-disciplinary basic and clinical research by integrating an information specialist into the research team in order to improve the capture, storage, organization, management, integration, presentation and dissemination of biomedical research data and (2) to assess and document the value and impact of the informationist's participation.
New strategies are required to reap benefits of the rich and complex digital information streams that flow through settings of clinical care, biomedical research, health administration and health professions education. In addition, poor management of research data can lead to research errors (see, for example, http://www.boston.com/Boston/whitecoatnotes/2011/12/harvard-stem-cell-paper-retracted/GKg3aYGFrikxwqde5o0DeP/index.html.)The National Library of Medicine (NLM) believes that clinical, translational and biomedical research can be improved by the active involvement of informationists. Informationists are information specialists, usually health sciences librarians, who have graduate training and practical experience that provides them with disciplinary background in biomedical, behavioral or biological sciences and in library and information sciences/informatics. Their cross training provides informationists with a unique perspective on the acquisition, synthesis, management and use of information in research. Informationists work as team members with research scientists and health professionals, and are sometimes called in-context information specialists for that reason.
The informationist brings highly specialized information science and knowledge management expertise to a research project, covering topics such as (but not limited to) critical appraisal and preparation of systematic reviews, assessing user needs, identifying research data archives, indexing and classification, data curation, knowledge mapping, information retrieval and visualization, integrating knowledge resources into the Electronic Health Record, and measuring impact of research. An informationist can help clinicians or biologists select and master approaches for data management, define parameters of a data management strategy, assist with coordination and collaboration for team science, evaluate outcomes and impact, and coordinate required submissions, such as those for PubMed Central and Clinical Trials.gov. Often, the importance of research data management is overlooked in research projects, and the valuable contributions of information experts to research projects are not well documented.
The NLM Administrative Supplement for Informationist Projects is designed to provide researchers with specialized information expertise for a purpose that is in scope for their funded research. Recipients will be expected to report annually on the work accomplished under the supplement and the value it added to the project outcomes.
Characterizing and documenting the value that information expertise brings to research is a fundamental goal of this supplement. A plan for assessing the value added by the informationist should be part of the application for this administrative supplement.
Administrative Supplements supported by this program are expected to improve the way information is captured, stored and managed; to improve the ability to integrate the project's data with other research data streams; to make it easier to share data with colleagues or publishers, to meet required public deposit guidelines, and other similar purposes.
In addition, the focus is on applying the expertise of informationists to the organization, integration, management and use of biomedical research data, and documenting the value of their involvement.
Funding Instrument |
The funding instrument will be the same as the parent award. |
Application Types Allowed |
Non-competing Administrative Supplements |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Total direct costs requested for the supplement may not exceed $25,000 per year. The total cost requested must not exceed $50,000 over a two-year period and must reflect actual needs of the proposed project. The funding mechanism being used to support this program, administrative supplements, can be used to cover cost increases that are associated with achieving certain new research objectives, as long as the research objectives are within the original scope of the project, or the cost increases are for unanticipated expenses within the original scope of the project. Any cost increases need to result from making modifications to the project that would increase or preserve the overall impact of the project consistent with its originally approved objectives and purposes. Approximately five (5) administrative supplement awards are anticipated in FY 2012, contingent on the receipt of sufficiently meritorious requests. The funding of these Administrative Supplements is expected to commence by September 2012. Only one supplement per eligible "parent" grant may be requested. |
Award Project Period |
The project and budget periods must be within the currently approved project period for the existing parent award. A project period of up to 2 years may be proposed (provided the parent grant is active for the entire funding period of the supplement). These administrative supplements are non-renewable. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
All organizations administering an eligible parent award may apply for a supplement under this announcement.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
This announcement is for supplements to existing projects. To be eligible, the parent award must be active and the research proposed in the supplement must be accomplished within the competitive segment. The proposed supplement must be to provide for an increase in costs due to unforeseen circumstances. All additional costs must be within the scope of the peer reviewed and approved project.
IMPORTANT: The research proposed by the NIH grantee in the supplement application must be within the original scope of the NIH-supported grant project.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an
award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering
System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA
Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA
Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at
least 4-6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Individual(s) must hold an active grant or cooperative
agreement, and the research proposed in the supplement must be accomplished
within the competitive segment of the active award. Individuals are invited to
work with their organizations to develop applications for support.
For supplements to parent awards that include multiple PDs/PIs, the supplement
may be requested by any or all of the PD/PIs (in accordance with the existing
leadership plan) and submitted by the awardee institution of the parent award. Do
not use this administrative supplement application to add, delete, or change
the PD/PIs listed on the parent award. Visit the Multiple Program
Director/Principal Investigator Policy in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide
for more information.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Only one supplement application per parent award is allowed.
Since applications in response to this announcement will only receive administrative review by the awarding Institute or Center, and will not receive a peer review, the NIH policy on resubmissions will not apply. However, applications not accepted by the Institute or Center for review, or not funded by the Institute or Center, should not be submitted again without either responding to any written concerns or contacting the awarding Institute or Center for instructions first.
Current NIH awardees with active R01 grants from any of the participating Institutes/Centers listed above; current NIA awardees with active P01, P30, and P50 grants; and current NIDCR awardees with U01 grants may apply for this administrative supplement provided the following conditions are met.
The work supported by the administrative supplement must be related to the stated Purposes of this Administrative Supplement Program and remain within the general scope of the original parent award.
The proposed supplement must be within the general scope of the peer-reviewed activities and aims approved within the parent grant.
For center grants, a specific research project for which supplemental funding is requested must be identified (limit of one supplement request per parent grant).
IMPORTANT: The funding mechanism being used to support this program, administrative supplements, can be used to cover cost increases that are associated with informationist support as long as it is relevant to the original scope of the project. Please contact the NLM Scientific Contact listed in this FOA, for questions related to the informationist role and activities. The Program Director of the parent grant can provide guidance to determine if the supplement fits within the approved scope of the project.
Important Note: NOT eligible for this Administrative Supplement Program are awards that:
To be eligible, the parent grant must be active through the entire time period of the supplement, and the work proposed in the supplement must be accomplished within the competitive segment. No-cost extensions cannot be used to accommodate this requirement.
Applicants are required to prepare applications according to
the current application forms in accordance with the Application Guide.
For electronic submissions, applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this announcement, or use the eRA Commons streamlined submission process.
All forms should be completed for the supplemental
activities only and should not reflect funding or activities for the
previously awarded parent award.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Application Guide
(R&R) Application Guide or PHS398
Application Guide, as appropriate) except where instructed in this funding
opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in
the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are
out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
For this Administrative Supplement FOA, the following page limits apply:
The process for submitting an application varies depending on whether the activity code of the parent award requires electronic submission (as of the submission date of the supplement application). Visit the list of Activity Codes Processed Electronically by eRA to determine if the activity code of the parent award has transitioned to electronic submission.
Instructions for Submissions using Grants.gov/Apply for electronic-based submissions
For grants with activity codes that have transitioned to electronic submission using the SF424 (R&R) application forms, administrative supplement requests may be submitted electronically. Prepare applications using the SF424 (R&R) application forms associated with this announcement. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this announcement. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate required and optional components. In order to facilitate tracking and timely award decisions, applicants are requested to notify the NLM program office when the application has been submitted. Send notification to firstname.lastname@example.com; please include the PD/PI name and grant number.
Special Instructions for Streamlined Submissions using the eRA Commons for electronic-based submissions
NIH now offers a streamlined system through the eRA Commons for submitting administrative supplements. Login to the eRA Commons, identify the parent award, and prepare an administrative supplement request.
Include the Introduction, Specific Aims, and Research Strategy as PDF files in the Add Other Attachments field. Budget information should be entered for the grantee institution in the fields provided. There is no template or form available for subaward information; instead, all subaward information should be included as a separate attachment showing the funds requested (by budget period) using the same categories provided for the grantee institution. Also include a budget justification for the subawardee institution in the same file. In order to facilitate tracking and timely award decisions, applicants are requested to notify the NLM program office when the application has been submitted. Send notification to firstname.lastname@example.com; please include the PD/PI name and grant number.
Instructions for Submissions using the PHS398 Application Forms (for paper-based submissions)
Applications must be prepared using the PHS398 research grant application forms and instructions for preparing a research grant application. The grantee institution, on behalf of the PD/PI of the parent award, must submit the request for supplemental funds directly to the awarding component that supports the parent award. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and two signed photocopies in one package to:
NLM Administrative Supplement for Informationist Services
NLM Extramural Programs
6705 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge 1, Suite 301
Bethesda MD 20892
Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. June 5, 2012. The request must be signed by the Authorized Organizational Representative/Signing Official (AOR/SO).
It is preferred that applicants convert PHS398 Application Forms (for paper-based submissions) to PDF format and submit as an e-mail attachment. The signature of the AOR must be clearly visible.
Send the application by e-mail to the National Library of Medicine, with cc to the program officer assigned to the awarding component that supports the grant; Application Submission Contacts listed below. Note that the NIH Center for Scientific Review is NOT involved in receipt of these applications.
MAILBOX FOR PDF SUBMISSIONS: email@example.com
You will receive an email confirmation of receipt of application from NLM.
For questions concerning submissions, contact
Josseline de Saint Just
NLM Extramural Programs
On the face page of the application form, note that your application is in response to a specific program announcement, and enter the title and number of this announcement.
All instructions in the Application Guide must be followed for all Research Plan sections applicable to the proposed supplement activities. At a minimum, the Research Strategy section should be completed and must include a summary or abstract of the funded parent award or project. Other sections should also be included if they are being changed by the proposed supplement activities.
Include a brief proposal describing the supplemental research activities, including:
A. Introduction describing how the proposed supplemental activities relate to the parent award.
B. Specific Aims for the supplement, including a brief statement of expected impact and scientific relevance of the supplemental work to the overall goals of this Administrative Supplements Program.
C. Research Strategy (see details below).
Research Strategy.
This section should include a description of the need for informationist expertise, the work to be undertaken, the qualifications of the chosen person for the work, and how added value will be assessed. Describe how it relates to the goals of this Administrative Supplements Program. Explain also how the proposed supplemental activities will augment research conducted under the parent award. Research Strategy should contain sufficient detail to allow assessment of proposed plans and the appropriateness of the request for supplemental funding in the context of the priorities of this Administrative Supplement Program.
Include the primary site where the proposed supplement activities will be performed. If a portion of the proposed supplement activities will be performed at any other site(s), identify the locations in the fields provided.
List the PD/PI as the first person (regardless of their role on the supplement activities). List any other Senior/Key Personnel who are being added through this supplement, or for whom additional funds are being requested through this supplement; include a biographical sketch for each. Follow all instructions in the Application Guide. Include biographical sketches for any other information specialists supported by the grant (e.g., informatician or programmer.)
All budgets should be submitted using the R&R Detailed Budget form, regardless of the form used for the parent award, and should only include funds requested for the additional supplement activities.
A proposed budget should be submitted using the PHS398 budget forms, in accordance with the PHS398 Application Guide, and should only include funds requested for the additional supplement activities.
All instructions in the Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
IACUC Documentation and IRB Documentation (Uploaded via the Other Attachments Section for electronic submissions)
The filename provided for each Other Attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the electronic application in eRA Commons.
Foreign (non-US) institutions are not eligible to apply.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications as described above. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
For electronic application submission, information on the
submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424(R&R)
Application Guide.
For paper-based application submission, information on the process of receipt and determining if your application is considered
on-time is described in detail in the PHS398 Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted using the instructions specified above
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
For applications submitted electronically on the SF424
(R&R) Application forms, all PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID
in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of
the SF 424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the
Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will
prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the awarding Institute or Center. Applications that are incomplete and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Not Applicable.
Administrative Supplements do not receive peer review. Instead, the administrative criteria described below will be considered in the administrative evaluation process.
The staff of the NIH awarding component will evaluate requests for a supplement to determine its overall merit. The following general criteria will be used:
Budget and Period of Support
NIH Staff will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Overall Impact
NIH staff will consider the ability of the proposed supplement activities to increase or preserve the parent award's overall impact within the original scope of award:
Does the proposed project meet the goals of the supplement program?
Does the proposed project include appropriate design, methodologic, analytic/evaluative, and outcome considerations for the informationist's duties and impact?
Will the proposed project add to the research outcome of the parent project?
Can the proposed project be conducted within the timeframe proposed?
In addition, each of the following criteria will be evaluated as applicable for the proposed supplement.
Protections for Human Subjects:
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, NIH staff will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects,
2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects
and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety
monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, NIH
staff will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects
involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information
on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, NIH staff will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
NIH Staff will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
NIH Staff will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Administrative supplement requests will undergo an
administrative evaluation by NIH staff, but not a full peer review. Applications
submitted for this funding opportunity will be assigned to the awarding
component for the parent award and will be administratively evaluated using the
criteria shown above.
Not Applicable.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA)
will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications.
This may be as an NoA for the supplemental activities only; alternatively, it
may be as either a revision to the current year NoA or included as part of a
future year NoA. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the
authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee's business
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Any supplements to Cooperative Agreements will be subject to the same Cooperative Agreement terms and conditions as the parent award.
Reporting requirements will be specified in the terms and conditions of award as applicable to the supplemental activities. In most non-competing continuation applications, the progress report and budget for the supplement must be included with, but clearly delineated from, the progress report and budget for the parent award. The progress report must include information about the activities supported by the supplement even if support for future years is not requested. Continuation of support for the supplement activities in the remaining years of the competitive segment of the grant will depend upon satisfactory review by the NIH awarding component of progress for both the parent award and the supplement project, the research proposed for the next budget period, and the appropriateness of the proposed budget for the proposed effort. This information is submitted with the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, Form 2590, and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Direct program/scientific-related inquiries to the NLM Scientific Program Contact identified below AND the IC Program Official indicated on the Notice of Award for the parent grant.
NLM Scientific Program Contact
Valerie Florance, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Extramural Programs
National Library of Medicine
Program Contacts for Participating Institutes and Centers
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Referral Officer
Division of Extramural Activities
National Cancer Institute
6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8041, MSC 8329
Bethesda, MD 20892-8329 (for U.S. Postal Service regular or express mail)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for non-USPS delivery)
Telephone: (301) 496-3428
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders (NIDCD)
Judith Cooper, Director of Program Divisions
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Contact the program officer assigned to the parent grant
National Eye Institute (NEI)
Ellen Liberman, Extramural Policy Officer
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Contact the program officer assigned to the parent grant
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
Contact the program officer assigned to the parent grant
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Garry J. Murray, Ph.D.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda MD 20892
Office Phone: (301) 443-9940
Cell Phone: (301) 538-8485
email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Not Applicable.
Direct all financial and grants management-related questions concerning the administrative supplement to the NLM contact listed below, with cc to the Grants Management contact from your funding IC:
Mr. Dwight Mowery
NLM Extramural Programs
6705 Rockledge Drive
Rockledge 1, Suite 301
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: (301) 496-4221
Fax: (301) 402-0421
Email: email@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
Seasonings Category Main Page Articles & Reviews
Main Nibbles Main Page Articles & Reviews Of Foods From A To Z
Product Reviews
Main Page Foods, Beverage, Books News & More
July 2008 Updated June 2009
This is Part II of an eight-part article. Here, we explore cinnamon. Use the index immediately below to navigate from page to page.
Article Index
Cinnamon is the fine inner skin of the fragrant tree bark of cinnamon and cassia trees, which grow wild throughout Asia. There are two principle types of cinnamon: Cassia, or "Saigon," and Ceylon. Cassia cinnamon, which comes from the cassia tree, is native to Southeast Asia, especially southern China and northern Vietnam. It has the strong, spicy-sweet flavor most Americans are familiar with. The second type of cinnamon, Ceylon, has a much different flavor: a less sweet, more complex, citrusy flavor. Ceylon cinnamon is also known as "old-fashioned cinnamon." The special flavors of English and Mexican sweets comes from Ceylon cinnamon.
Of the Seven Super Spices, cinnamon has the most antioxidants by far, and is probably the most versatile, to boot. Just one teaspoon of this spice contains 6,956 ORAC units. Its spicy-sweet flavor makes it the perfect touch in everything from cookies to stew. Get a huge shot of antioxidants by adding cinnamon to the foods you already eat every day: coffee, hot cocoa, cereal, vegetable soups—cinnamon is appropriate for dishes both sweet and savory.
Click here to learn how to make Moroccan Bean & Pepper Stew and Mango-Blueberry Cobbler, two delicious recipes from McCormick that include plenty of cinnamon.
Go To Part III: Ginger
Go To The Index At The Top Of The Page
All material


text:
The Twin Cities of 2040 will likely be starkly different from the place you live now. People will increasingly live in dense, urban concentrations, even if they'd prefer a house with a yard outside the 494 beltway.
Government planners will have power to steer new jobs into central cities and first-ring suburbs, and to set what amounts to quotas for people of different incomes and races in neighborhoods and schools throughout the metro area. Outside the urban core, highway conditions will deteriorate and congestion — encouraged by government — will get worse.
As these changes unfold, you'll never be sure how the freedom and quality of life you once took for granted slipped away. Plenty of elected officials will be as frustrated as you are. But mysteriously, they too will stand powerless as choices constrict.
What will be the engine of this transformation? An out-of-the-limelight agency we generally think of as running the buses and occasionally approving a new runway at the airport: the Metropolitan Council.
In coming months, the council will release a draft of "Thrive MSP 2040" — its comprehensive plan to shape development in the seven-county region over the next 30 years. Powerful forces are coalescing to use the document as a tool for social planners to use to design their vision of the perfect society — and to impose it on the rest of us.
A huge, unchecked power grab is about to take place beneath our noses. But mayors and city councils will find it hard to push back. That's because the Met Council will increasingly wield the power to decide which municipalities thrive and which decline. It will both write the rules for development and hold the purse strings.
The Met Council was established in the mid-1960s at the behest of Republican-leaning policymakers, who believed regional planning of infrastructure could enhance efficiency. Its reach has grown dramatically, and today it allocates funds (state, federal and regional) among the region's 187 municipalities for projects ranging from highway improvement to bridges to sewer lines. In the process, the council's role has expanded well beyond its original mandate, as government so often does.
We can expect MSP 2040 to put this process on steroids, giving the agency a license, over time, to dramatically remake the entire region.
'Equity,' 'sustainability'
The forces shaping MSP 2040 — whose final vision the council will approve in 2014 — are part of a growing nationwide movement called "regionalism."
Regional planning of service delivery and infrastructure is important, of course. But "regionalism," as an ideology, is not, as its name suggests, about promoting the good of a region as a whole. It's about metro centers — the urban core and inner-ring suburbs — usurping control over outer-ring communities to advance their own interests and, in the process, effectively replacing local elected officials with a handful of regional governments.
In the case of the Twin Cities, the ramifications for democratic self-rule are profound. The Met Council's 17 members are not elected. Though they come from different parts of the seven-county area, they don't represent the needs and interests of voters there. They are all appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton, and they owe their allegiance to him.
The press for regionalism is coming from the highest power in the land: the Obama White House. The Obama administration's campaign to build the regulatory framework to implement the movement's agenda is documented in political analyst Stanley Kurtz's 2012 book, "Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities."
The Twin Cities may be a showcase for how far the regionalist crusade can go. Our Met Council is unique, and we already have regional tax-base sharing — one of the movement's most sought-after tools.
An army of academics, environmental organizations, foundations, and transit advocacy and left-wing religious groups is working to ensure that MSP 2040 greatly expands the Met Council's regulatory control. And there's a movement underway to organize politicians from inner-ring suburbs and Minneapolis and St. Paul, with the goal of taking on the outer-ring suburbs and forging a permanent legislative majority for the regionalist agenda.
Regionalism is driven by a core ideological conviction: The cause of the poverty and social dysfunction that bedevil America's cities is the greed and racial bigotry of suburbanites — especially those in prosperous, outer-ring suburbs, which are viewed as unjustly excluding the poor. Regionalists believe that financial aid for the inner ring won't remedy this injustice. A profound change in governance is required.
What sort of change? The title of a book by regionalist guru David Rusk puts it bluntly: "Cities without Suburbs." In regionalists' view, suburbs with their own tax bases are, by definition, a menace to cities, and the distinctions between the two must be wiped out as completely as possible.
Regionalists' strategy to effectively merge cities and suburbs turns on two ideologically freighted buzzwords: "equity" and "sustainability." "Equity" is code for using public policy to redistribute wealth and to engineer economic equality among demographic groups.
Regionalists view metrowide "economic integration" as one of government's primary responsibilities. Their plan to accomplish it is twofold: Disperse urban poverty throughout a metro area via low-income housing and make suburban life so inconvenient and expensive that suburbanites are pushed back into the city.
"Sustainability" means policies that would override market forces to ensure that in the future, the great majority of new jobs, economic development and public works projects are funneled into the metro area's urban core and inner ring — where, not coincidentally, regionalists' own political base is concentrated. "Sustainable" policies promote high-density, Manhattan-style living, and attempt to wean us away from our cars and push us to walk, bike or use public transit to get to work.
As one critic — speculating on MSP 2040's likely outcome — lamented: "Do we all have to live in a 1,500-square-foot condo above a coffee shop on a transit line?"
Suburbanites will disproportionately shoulder the costs of this socially engineered transformation, paying more in taxes and getting less back in infrastructure and public services.
Purse strings
Regionalists' strategy for imposing their agenda hinges on giving regional bodies like the Met Council the ultimate trump: the power of the checkbook. The Obama administration's "Sustainable Communities Initiative" (SCI) provides a model. SCI channels federal funds for land use, transportation and housing projects through regional bodies. The catch is that, to participate, municipalities must embrace redistributive "equity" goals.
The Met Council already has announced that "equity" and "mitigating economic and social disparities through regional investments" will be top priorities of MSP 2040. This explicit embrace of social engineering goals appears to signal an intent to initiate what could be a virtually limitless remake of our metro area.
Special-interest groups are lining up to lobby for proposals to embed "equity" and "sustainability" criteria in Met Council plans and/or funding criteria. These proposals include creating one giant seven-county metro school district to facilitate apportionment of students by race and income, and ensuring that "at least 70 percent of projected growth in population and households" in the next 30 years takes place through "infill and redevelopment of already urbanized land."
In the future, if Prior Lake or Anoka want to get a grant to expand a major regional highway, officials there may need to demonstrate that their city meets the council's "equity" criteria on low-income housing and doesn't allow "exclusionary" zoning, instead of just showing that the project would improve safety or reduce congestion.
Over time, demands could escalate. Eventually, for example, a municipality may have to meet onerous "carbon footprint" or "clean energy" requirements to get approval for a new sewer line. Pressure will mount to make state and federal aid of all kinds contingent on meeting Met Council social planning dictates.
Most likely, the council will continue to operate under the fiction that cities have a choice. Yet a city council or a county board that declines to comply with "regionalist" criteria — citing its citizens' needs and preferences — would ensure that funds and approval for improvement would stop, and so would remain frozen in time.
Advocates insist that the Twin Cities must embrace regionalist policies to remain "economically competitive." In fact, top-down planning by unaccountable bureaucrats that distorts market forces is likely to constrict overall prosperity and stymie development. Ironically, it's also likely to increase "sprawl," as people flee to cities like Delano or Elk River to get beyond the Met Council's iron grip.
Most importantly, the direction the Met Council is heading is inconsistent with our deepest beliefs as a people. The American dream is about striving for a better life through economic growth, not redistribution of wealth. Regionalists' Orwellian appeals to "equity" and "sustainability" are hostile to our cherished traditions of individual liberty, personal responsibility and local self-government.
Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment. The views expressed here are her own. She is at email@example.com.


text:
BRITAIN'S sailors got off to a flying start in the opening weekend of Paralympic Sailing races on home waters.
Fiercely competitive fleet racing in Port-land Harbour saw the ParalympicsGB contenders make gains towards achieving the country's first medals in the three keelboat classes.
After four races, quadruple Skud-18 World Champions Alex Rickham and crewmate Niki Birrell are second overall in the 11-boat fleet, just one point behind their Australian rivals Daniel Fitzgibbon and Liesl Tesch.
The American team of Jen French and JP Creignou are third, with seven races to go, following two wins yesterday.
Helm Rickham, 30, said: "We don't really like being pushed down the leaderboard but it's quite tough conditions and obviously the Americans showed great pace all day to take two bullets.
"We had a bad start in the first race but managed to battle back to fourth so we're pretty happy with that.
"In the second race there was a bit of a dog fight going on, we ended up doing some turns for something, I'm not sure if we needed to, but all in all we're quite happy with the day."
Rickham said it was still early days but every race counted.
She added: "We've worked at this for four years, if we can't do it now it's not going to happen. This is it."
Helena Lucas enjoyed a flying start in the 16-boat 2.4mR fleet on Saturday but slipped from first to third place overall yesterday after taking a 720-degree penalty turn in race four for allegedly 'rocking' the boat to increase its speed.
The 37-year-old denied the charge and said: "From my point of view I was steering the boat in the waves, which in the 2.4 creates a rocking motion.
"Look at the size of me – I'm not very big to rock the boat but it's a jury decision, that's the way it goes."
Lucas intended to unwind watching her football team Southampton against Manchester United and then 'keep chipping away' to get on the podium.
Drama in the 2.4mR class on Saturday saw reigning World Champion Damien Seguin, of France, disqualified from race two following a protest by his Canadian rival for a starting line incident.
The Athens gold medallist fell from second to ninth place but progressed to sixth overall after yesterday's races.
Meanwhile, the British Sonar Team of John Robertson , Hannah Stodel and Steve Thomas clawed their way back from 10th to fifth place in their last race yesterday, to lie fifth overall in the 14-boat Sonar fleet.
The trio made an unsuccessful redress request on Saturday, after a confusing X flag made them unnecessarily turn back to the starting line in race two, costing vital places.
But skipper Robertson, 40, said their plan still remained to 'get the job done and nail it'.
Crewmate Thomas added that Weymouth and Portland was 'showcasing itself as a fantastic sailing venue'.
- EIGHTY competitors from 23 nations are taking part in the London 2012 Paralympic sailing regatta.
The competition began on Saturday and will finish on Thursday, September 6, with races taking place from 11am daily on Portland Harbour.
Medals will be decided after 11 races in each of the three keelboat events – the 2.4mR single-handed class, Skud-18 two-person class and Sonar three-person class.
Channel 4, the official broadcaster of the London 2012 Paralympic Games, has so far failed to show any of the sailing action.
Hundreds of spectators have been gathering at harbour vantage points to watch with binoculars, including 180 people at Sandsfoot Castle and Gardens, plus dozens of friends and family members of the ParalympicsGB contenders at Castle Cove Sailing Club and more at Hamm Beach.
The ICCI 360 dome on Weymouth Pavilion forecourt has pledged to show sailing footage.
Follow the racing on Twitter by following @EchoSailing, @BritishSailing and @IFDS_updates.
- A CRUISE ship added Portland to its list of exotic destinations as it arrived at the port yesterday.
Royal Caribbean's 962ft Jewel of the Seas came for a day visit as the Paralympics sailing events took place in the surrounding seas.
The ship can hold more than 2,500 passengers weighs more than 90,000 tonnes.
Today, ship enthusiasts should be on the lookout for 51,000-tonne cruise liner Crystal Symphony, owned by Crystal Cruises, which will also pay a visit.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here


text:
Right now, as you read this, your attention is focused on the words and phrases as you scan the page with your eyes. You might even hear a familiar voice in your mind, reading the text. At the same time, words and phrases create ideas and visual images associated with memories. All of this information is being provided to you in the comfort of your most private and intimate space. A place so secret that only you can be there. The place where you are conscious... and you know it. But where is that exactly?
If the eyes are really the "window to the soul" then the soul -- and perhaps the conscious "I AM" -- must be located just behind the eyes. This is a reality for most of us who believe, especially when speaking to another person, that we're interacting with a space in back of the eyes, in the center of the brain. Is that where we really are?
The notion that consciousness resides somewhere in the brain is a somewhat modern idea. It was not accepted by the ancients. Some cultures believed that a person's essence was in their heart. The Egyptian mummies had their internal organs carefully preserved for re-indivualization in the afterlife, yet their brains were unceremoniously scooped out through their nose and discarded with what was not unlike a bent coat hanger.
Descartes insisted that the pineal gland was the "seat of the soul" because it was a rare single structure, centrally located in the brain. [See viewzone article The Pineal: Is it the seat of the soul?] Descartes was one of the first anatomist to understand the problem of explaining consciousness since humans have not one, but two brains.
Left Brain or Right Brain: Where is consciousness?
Our brain, like the rest of our anatomy, is made up of two halves, a left brain and a right brain. There's a big fold that goes from front to back in our brain, essentially dividing it into two distinct and separate parts. Well, almost separate. They are connected to each other by a thick cable of nerves at the base of each brain. This link between the two giant hemispheres is called the corpus collosum [above]. Think of it as a network connection between two incredibly fast and immensely powerful computer processors, each running different programs from the same input.
The left side of our body is "wired" to the right side of our brain, and vice versa. For whatever reason nature did this cross-over, it applies even to our eyes, which process a majority of their sensory data on opposite sides of the brain.
We can thank Nobel Prize Winner (1981) Roger Sperry for this next contribution. Sperry conducted what are sometimes called the "split-brain" experiments. Here's how it went: A patient suffering from uncontrolled seizures had an area of his brain removed by surgery in an attempt to control his illness. This area just happened to be the corpus collosum, which was suspected of having developed lesions (short circuits).
Following his surgery, Sperry's patient seemed completely normal -- almost. A series of tests were conducted where each "half" of the patient was isolated from the other. Different visual and tactile information could then be presented to the patient's left or right side, without the other side knowing. The results were astounding.
With their communications link severed, each side of the patient's brain was functioning independently. Although this did not prevent his ability to walk, talk and eat, some unexpected findings were encountered in some of the higher brain functions when each side was examined independently of the other.
The right hand and eye could name an object, such as a pencil, but the patient could not explain what it was used for. When shown to the left hand and eye, the patient could explain and demonstrate its use, but could not name it. Further studies showed that various functions of thought are physically separated and localized to a specific area on either the left or right side of the human brain. This functional map is consistent for an estimated 70 to 95 percent of us.
"The main theme to emerge... is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and nonverbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres respectively and that our education system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect the nonverbal form of intellect. What it comes down to is that modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere." --Roger Sperry (1973)
Upon completing the map of the brain's functions, it was clear to researchers that each side of the brain has a characteristic way in which it interprets and reacts to the world. The chart below [for right-handed persons] will help illustrate the characteristics which are known to reside on each side of our brains .
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS uses logic detail oriented facts rule words and language present and past math and science can comprehend knowing acknowledges order/pattern perception knows object name reality based forms strategies practical safe
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS uses feeling "big picture" oriented imagination rules symbols and images present and future philosophy & religion can "get it" (i.e. meaning) believes appreciates spatial perception knows object function fantasy based presents possibilities impetuous risk taking
Our personality can be thought of as dependent on the degree to which the left and right brains interact, or, in some cases, do not interact. It is a simplification to identify "left brain" types who are very analytical and orderly. We likewise certainly know of the artistic, unpredictability and creativity of "right brain" types. But each of us draws upon specific sides of our brain for a variety of daily functions, depending on such things as our age, education and life experiences. The choices of which brain is in control of which situations is what forges our personalities and determines our character.
An important aspect of who we are is the memory of our past experiences. This provides continuity to our concept of self. These memories are stored on one or the other hemisphere -- not both -- depending on the context and importance to the particular hemisphere [1]. Retrieving memories relies upon the willingness of each hemisphere to cooperate and share information. We have no control over the quarrels and stubbornness of the hemispheres. We are only aware of the results from their somehow "working it out."
When one hemisphere learns, has certain experiences, and stores information in memory, this information is not always available to the opposing hemisphere; one hemisphere cannot always gain access to memories stored in the other half of the brain [2].
To gain access to these lateralized memories, one hemisphere has to activate the memory banks of the other brain half via the corpus callosum [3]. This has been demonstrated experimentally in primates. After one hemisphere had been trained to perform a certain task, both hemispheres could respond correctly once it was learned. But when the corpus collosum was subsequently cut in the experiment, only the hemisphere that originally was trained was able to perform. The untrained hemisphere acted as though it never had been exposed to the task; its ability to retrieve the original memories in the opposite hemisphere was now abolished. [4]
If memories can be inhibited prior to consciousness then they are not a reliable indicator of identity. This drama between the brain's hemispheres should not concern our quest for the source of consciousness. It happens and we are aware of it. The drama creates our personality, or more precisely our personna. But consciousness is deeper. It is the awareness of ourselves as an aware person.
Consciousness is NOT Personality
According to Gerald M. Edelman, "Consciousness is neither a thing nor a simple property." Edelman has asserted that a fundamental property of consciousness is that it cannot be broken down into independent components. That is to say, consciousness is integrated within the brain, and involves many widely separated areas. In this model, consciousness is not a location but a process. Personality is the acquired pattern of response to the environment by agreement between both hemispheres and requires no conscious involvement.
While we have learned much about the specific regions of the brain and their functions, we have not discovered the location of the "command center" where the "I" and "Me" resides. It is apparent that most of what happens in our mind is automatic, or reactive in that it can function with little or no consciousness. What we know of as "consciousness" is looking like a passive observer of elaborate and efficient mind systems.
Consciousness is NOT Free Will
We like to think that we use our unique human consciousness to exercise our free-will. We are the masters of our destiny and so control our life from the "Captain's chair" of our consciousness. Not so.
Consider an experiment conducted in 1976. Dr. Kornhuber asked a number of volunteers to be wired with EEG electrodes to measure their brain activity. He then asked the volunteers to flex the index finger of their right hand, suddenly and at various times of their own choosing. He wanted to measure how fast it took for the mental decision to move the finger to actually make the finger move. His results were not what he expected.
Kornhuber expected to find a sharp peak in electrical activity when the decision was consciously made, at which point he would begin timing the trials. However, what he found is remarkable, namely that there is a gradual build-up of recorded electric potential for a full second, or perhaps even up to a second and a half, before the finger is actually flexed. This seems to indicate that the conscious decision process takes over a second in order to act! Even more surprising was that the volunteers were not aware of this delay and believed they were acting spontaneously and instantly.
So what happened? Did the brain somehow "know" that the decision would be made in the future and begin planning the action?
The experiment received little attention until another experiment conducted by Dr. Libet in 1979 raised questions about our conscious perception of time and the idea of "now."
Everything "now" happened already!
Dr. Libet tested subjects who had to have brain surgery for some reason unconnected with the experiment and who consented to having electrodes placed at points in the brain, in the somatosensory cortex. He monitored the electrical activity while stimulating their skin. To his amazement it took about a half-second before the subjects were able to perceive the stimulation. Further experiments showed that this same delay -- about a half second -- was needed for all sensory input to reach consciousness.
The significance of this is enormous. Everything we know about the external world right now -- the sounds, the sights, the feelings -- are all being delayed. Everything that you think is happening right now actually happened already, about half a second ago!
This seems to prove that the decision to move one's finger happens before we are conscious of it. Consciousness is not involved in our decisions, it merely acknowledges them. Decisions are based on acquired logic, reason and experience. They happen before we are conscious of them.
Consciousness is NOT Perception
Everything about the external world that comes from our senses is filtered. This includes the information about ourselves that feeds back to us from others. But how reliable and accurate is that information?
A novel temporal illusion, in which the cause of an event is perceived to occur after the event itself, provides some insight into the brain mechanisms underlying conscious perception. The illusion, described in the journal Current Biology, suggests that the unconscious representation of a visual object is processed for around one tenth of a second before it enters conscious awareness.
Chien-Te Wu and his colleagues at the Brain and Cognition Research Centre in Toulouse used a visual phenomenon called motion-induced blindness, in which a constantly rotating background causes prominent and motionless visual stimuli to disappear and reappear, as demonstrated in the video [below].
Fixate on the flashing green spot in the centre, and you'll notice that the surrounding yellow spots begin to disappear and reappear after about ten seconds. Then replay the clip and focus on any of the yellow spots. Hmmmm. Perception is fallible. [10]
Consciousness is NOT Thinking
Consider what happens when you drive a car and daydream or talk on the cellphone. The complexities of adjusting speed, signaling, changing lanes and navigating are carried out without your conscious awareness. And even if you are conscious of driving, the thinking, decisions and judgements are already made by the time you realize them.
This strange phenomenon was illustrated in a famous experiment conducted by H. J. Watt [5] in which he showed nouns, printed on a card, to his subjects. They were instructed to give an associated word as soon as possible. It was like a typical word association test but it had one additional step. Before they were shown the target noun, the subjects were told that the association would be of a specific type.
"Subjects were required to associate to the visual word a superordinate (e.g., oak-tree), coordinate (oak-elm), or subordinate (oak-beam); or a whole (oak forest), a part (oak-acorn), or another part of a common whole (oak-path). [6]
In order for the subjects to complete the task they had to divide their consciousness into four periods: 1-the presentation of the type of association the experimenter wanted, 2-the exposure of the target noun to the subject, 3-the period during which the association is chosen and 4-the verbal response from the subject.
"The introspecting observers were asked to confine themselves first to one period and then to another, and thus get a more accurate account of consciousness in each." [ibid.]
It was expected that thinking would be found in the third period, when the association is chosen, but this was the so-called "introspectively blank" period where no thinking was recorded. The selection was already made. It was as if one does one's thinking before one knows what one is to think about. [7] Thinking is automatic and consciousness is always "the last to know."
Consciousness is NOT Self-Awareness
Self-recognition, once thought to be an ability enjoyed only by select primates, has now been demonstrated in a bird.
In the so-called "mirror mark tests", a colored mark is placed on the animal in such a way that it can only be observed when it looks at its own reflection in a mirror. This format has been used repeatedly to sort the "self-aware" beasts from the rest. In addition to humans, only four apes, bottlenose dolphins and Asian elephants have passed the test, given to hundreds of animals.
Helmut Prior at Goethe University in Frankfurt and his colleagues applied a red, yellow or black spot to a place on the necks of five magpies. Then he gave the birds mirrors.
The feel of the stickers on their necks didn't seem to bother the magpies. But when the birds with coloured neck spots caught a glimpse of themselves, they freaked out and scratched at their necks with claw and beak to remove the colored stickers. This was interpreted as a clear indication that the magpies recognised the image in the mirror as their own. As expected, those who received a black sticker, invisible against the black neck feathers, did not react.
Franz de Waal at Emory University in Atlanta points out that the magpies have big brains. "You need a large brain with a lot of connectivity," he says. "If it had been a sparrow, it would have been a problem." But something magpies do not have is a neo-cortex -- the traditional location self-awareness in humans.
It has been suggested that self-recognition in birds and mammals may be a case of convergent evolution, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviors or traits, such as self-awareness, although they arrive at them via different routes.
De Waal agrees: "Magpies are known for their ability to steal shiny objects and to hide away their loot. It's not too far-fetched that a master thief like a magpie has that perspective-taking ability," he says, referring to the idea that the birds have a "theory of mind".[11] [7]
Neurorobotics reveals brain mechanisms of self-consciousness
A study, published by Cell Press in the April 2011 issue of the journal Neuron, identifies a brain region called the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) as being critical for the feeling of being an entity localized at a particular position in space and for perceiving the world from this position and perspective -- in other words "self consciousness."
Recent theories of self-consciousness highlight the importance of integrating many different sensory and motor signals from many widely spaced brain regions. But it's not clear how this type of integration focuses to create a subjective state such as self-location ("Where am I in space?") and the first-person perspective ("From where am I perceiving the world?").
Studies of neurological patients reporting out-of-body experiences have provided some evidence. These patients have witnessed a conscious perspective that was outside of their body. It has been shown that brain damage which disrupts the integration of these multisensory signals may lead to pathological changes of the first-person ("I") perspective and self-location.
Dr. Blanke and colleagues studied healthy subjects and employed specific experimentally sound bodily conflicts that induced changes in self-location and first-person perspective. At the same time they were monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging. They observed that TPJ activity reflected experimental changes in self-location and first-person ("I am") perspective. The researchers also completed a large study of neurological patients with out-of-body experiences and found that brain damage was localized to the TPJ.
"Our findings on experimentally and pathologically induced altered states of self-consciousness present a powerful new research technology and reveal that TPJ activity reflects one of the most fundamental subjective feelings of humans: the feeling that 'I' am an entity that is localized at a position in space and that 'I' perceive the world from here." [8]
What is meant by consciousness?
Most theories of consciousness fail to incorporate the two brains in their psychology. The exception is Julian Jaynes' Bicameral Theory. Jaynes argues that consciousness -- which he describes as the awareness that we are aware -- is a relatively new acquisition for humans and is only about 5,000 years old. Prior to this humans had a bicameral mind which was incapable of introspection.
According to Janyes, primitive humans first made use of both hemispheres with the evolution of language. Ideas and concepts could be represented by a "sound" (i.e. word) and this allowed the hemispheres to communicate in a most unusual way.
Jaynes theorizes that the two hemispheres in bicameral man acted more independently than in modern humans. Like today, the language centers were located in the dominant hemisphere (usually the left side, for right handed people) but the non-dominant hemisphere made itself known during times of danger or stress.
Because the non-dominant hemisphere thinks differently and has a different "take" on the world, it often can perceive things and make judgements which the dominant hemisphere can not. The bicameral mind was more segregated and the non-dominant hemisphere made its views known by sending auditory hallucinations in the form of verbal commands, advice or predictions. These were no different from auditory hallcunations that plague schizophrenics. In fact, Jaynes proposes that schizophrenia is a regression to the bicameral mind of our ancestors. Jaynes believes these bicameral auditory hallucinations were common and were the "voice of God" written about in ancient texts. These auditory hallucinations originating from the non-dominant hemisphere were attributed to the many elders, deceased, deities and statues. [right: Innana]
According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or "breaking down" during the second millennium BC. As people began to live in cities they encountered strangers from different cultures who spoke different languages. Written rules and laws took over the socializing role of the "inner voice" and somehow the bicameral mind morphed into a unified brain where the benefits of both hemispheres could be utilized to understand the world. New concepts -- more abstract concepts -- were possible. This eventually evolved the abstract concept of self, the "I".
A more complete discussion of Jaynes' theory and how this impacts various religious beliefs can be found in here: STATE OF MIND by Viewzone's Gary Vey.
Consciousness is NOT the Inner-Voice
With the development of the concept of self or "I", it was possible for the first time to create a verbal narrative of events in the mind. The narrative was from the perspective of the self. The narrative greatly improved the retention of experience in memory.
Sometimes, like me, you probably talk to yourself. You verbalize the inner voice that chides you or recites logical arguments to solve a problem. This constant narration utilizes the same language centers as our normal speech. It's part of the stuff that runs automatically, observed by consciousness.
There's was an interesting case study in The Lancet, about a woman who began hearing voices with speech impairments following a bicycle accident. It shows how the voice is really part of the mind and not consciousness.
The 63-year-old woman was treated at the University Hospital of Psychiatry in Bern, Switzerland, after falling from her bicycle and hitting her head. Following the accident, she suffered a brain hemorrhage and lost consciousness.
Upon her arrival at the hospital, it was found that the woman had an aneurysm and was paralyzed on one side of her body. This was treated, and a craniotomy was performed. After which tests showed damage in the frontal and temporal lobes.
After 4 weeks in the hospital's intensive care unit, the woman's paralysis was significantly reduced, but she still had severe speech deficits from damage to her language centers -- she could communicate using single words or incomplete sentences, and could only understand short phrases.
In December 2006, the patient began suffering from auditory hallucinations. She started hearing her thoughts aloud, as well as echoes of earlier conversations, and also hallucinated the voices of hospital staff. These voices appeared several times a day, for a few minutes at a time.
Although the patient understood that the voices were caused by her head injury, she believed them to be real, and heard them coming from a space outside of her body. She reported that they sounded just like other voices, but that they said only very short and simple sentences -- the same speech impediment that she had.
"[Brain injury-induced] epilepsy seems to have caused auditory hallucinations...[which are] widely thought to derive from inner speech that has been misidentified as coming from outside the self, because of defective monitoring. Our patient's experiences are consistent with this hypothesis, since her hallucinations had speech deficits that...were the same as her own. [9]
The inner voice is dependent upon the centers involved in speech. The inner voice is not a memory of something heard or imagined. It is the real voice of the brain's narrative, created by our language centers on the dominant side, often motivated by the guidance of the non-dominant side of our brains.
Where are you?
After reading all the experiments that have been done, I feel pretty safe in saying that consciousness, if not located in the brain, is surely dependent on it. Rather than looking for the point of absolute consciousness, I think there is enough evidence to consider that it may be a process involving the cooperation and coordination of many different regions of the brain.
"Self" is a concept used to designate the entity which witnesses our life. It is the thing that persists after you have taken away all that is under the control of the mind. Self-hood happens to us, delayed and filtered. In truth, the self is the watcher.
Off on a tangent...
No discussion about hemisphere dominance would be complete without a look at some of the interesting things we can learn about a person by examining each side of their face. The theory is that each side of the face is "wired" to the opposite side of the brain. Since the two hemispheres have different views on the world, it seems logical that their facial expression might reveal something about their personality.
Since the left brain is the dominant side in most right-handed people, the right side of their faces should reveal their dominant characteristics.The left side of their faces will reveal what's going on with the non-dominant side. Here, have a look at some well known people.
[Above (from the top): President Donald Trump, talented actor Gary Busey,who was in a motorcycle accident that damaged some of his facial nerves. The difference is obvious. Next is Mr. Loughner, the alleged gunman who recently fired into a crowd of innocent civilians at a political rally in Arizona, JFK, Obama, Hitler, Diana, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Rep. Weiner (of the facebook sexting scandal), Gaddafi, Casey Anthony.]
[2] Bures & Buresova 1960; Doty & Overman 1977; Hasegawa et al., 1998; Joseph, 1986b, 1988ab, 1992b; Kucharski et al. 1990; Levy, 1974; Risse & Gazzaniga 1979
[3] Doty & Overman, 1977; Hasegawa et al., 1998
[4] Doty & Overman, 1977; Hasegawa et al., 1998
[5] H. J. Watt, "Experimentelle Beitrage zur einer Theorie des Denkens," Archive fur geschite der Psychologie, 1905, 4: 289-436
[6] Julian Jaynes, "The Origins of Consciousness In The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind." (1976)
[7] Journal reference: PLoS Biology (DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202)
[8] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cp-nrb042511.php
[9] Hubl, D., et al. (2007). Hearing dysphasic voices. Lancet 370: 538.
[10] http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1506/version/1
[11] Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states -- beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. -- to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.


text:
Communication is an integral part of large scale science projects like VOCALS. It started years ago between people from the various institutions involved, via long distance phone calls and many, many emails.
Now that we are in the field, communication is still key. In one of his earlier postcards, Dr. Robert Wood already wrote about the Center of Operations. That is where scientists plan the aircraft missions, report about the status of the other observational platforms (the other aircraft and the ships), take an initial look at all the data collected, and discuss the data with other groups.
Communication also happens on a smaller scale: in the aircraft itself during the research flights. Since the C-130 is a very noisy plane, we all wear these headsets through which we are able to communicate with each other and with the flight scientist who sits in the cockpit with the pilots.
Each scientist on board the aircraft operates a different type of instrument. These instruments look at different aspects of our atmosphere: the size, chemical composition and amount of the particles present; the concentrations of various gases and the number of water droplets; and, on a larger scale, the shape and altitude of the clouds we are flying through. Via the headsets people can then communicate with each other if their instrument is reporting something special. In turn, the other scientists will then take a closer look at their instruments to check if their instrument is indeed also reporting any interesting observations. If it is, this is where the early excitement about the science starts! Sometimes, even the most serious scientist will become like a kid in a candy store when it comes to what they are seeing in and around those clouds! This makes our job very fun.
Also, with the modern invention of the Internet, we are not only capable of communicating with you and telling you about the science of our atmosphere; we are also able to easily communicate with our families back home. These field projects last for several weeks, which means we are all away from our homes and families for quite some time! It is a sacrifice you make for science, but I therefore do think that our families also deserve some of the credit for staying behind and supporting us!
Postcards from the Field: Climate Science from the Southeast Pacific
Undergrad Student Login Undergrad Faculty Login
Become a memberMember Benefits, No Ads
Real Climate: climate science from climate scientists
EPA Greenversations
Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment
Citizen Science Buzz